| |
| ▲ | gopher_space 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The author's little trans tirade is a great example, and you can start with his "I'm something of a medical expert" line. Pure ideology. | | |
| ▲ | mitthrowaway2 7 days ago | parent [-] | | I can't find where the author writes "I'm something of a medical expert". But for myself, I'm not up to date on the research. Does this article misrepresent the current state of scientific understanding? | | |
| ▲ | Interesco 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Not quite "medical expert" but the author does establish (or attempt to) as a leading figure on this topic in paragraph 11: "This is one of the few scientific subjects on which I've established a modicum of expertise" Long way from medical expert but it does imply a higher-level understanding of the science here. Whether writing a few articles makes someone an expert is up to the individual to decide. | |
| ▲ | crote 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes, it absolutely does. The Cass Review mentioned was composed by a group of authors who are well-known to be opposed to trans healthcare, its methodology and conclusions are heavily criticized by subject experts (basically, "there is no evidence if you ignore all the evidence"), and even Cass herself has stated after publication that it is flawed. It does not represent the current scientific understanding of trans healthcare, so criticizing SciAm and even calling it "dangerous" for pointing this out is rather dubious. The Cass Review was written primarily for political reasons. It isn't a peer-reviewed article written by neutral subject experts, and it should not be treated as such. The fact that Reason treats it as ground truth and ignores all the subject experts opposing it should say enough about their view on science. | | |
| ▲ | SpicyLemonZest 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't think what you're saying is true. I'm unaware of any indication that Hilary Cass for example is opposed to trans healthcare, and indeed she's explicitly stated that she agrees some young people benefit from it. | | |
| ▲ | VikingCoder 7 days ago | parent [-] | | Video with references talking about Cass. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI57lFn_vWk | | |
| ▲ | SpicyLemonZest 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | This video correctly states that the Cass Review explicitly supported trans healthcare in general. It does not seem to describe any particular author of the review who is opposed to trans healthcare. The host notes that Cass met with people who do oppose trans healthcare - but wouldn't it be problematic for a review of a new field of medical science to categorically exclude people who think it's bunk? | |
| ▲ | sso_eol 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | VikingCoder 7 days ago | parent [-] | | Nice ad hominem attack. If you prefer reading (and again, references), here ya go: https://www.patreon.com/posts/106206585 That provides lots of valuable context that Cass ignores, such as from organizations like The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and every other major medical organization in the US. | | |
| ▲ | sso_eol 7 days ago | parent [-] | | I've skimmed the video previously but thanks for the transcript. It just confirms that her message is basically that she doesn't understand it, couldn't be bothered to read it and think about it herself, so here are some people who disagree with it. Plus the usual ranting about transphobes, i.e. people who disagree with her beliefs. She even acknowledges that she waited to be told what to think about it. Yet she still styles herself as a "skeptic". Ridiculous, but quite amusing. | | |
| ▲ | VikingCoder 6 days ago | parent [-] | | "so here are some people"? That's how you describe the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and every other major medical organization in the US? If you're not convinced by the preponderance of peer-reviewed evidence, then I don't know how to help you make good decisions in life. Maybe talk to some of your trans friends about their life experiences? | | |
| ▲ | sso_eol 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Well, if she'd bothered to read Chapter 9 of the Review then she might have had some inkling as to why deferring to the AMA and the AAP isn't such a great idea. Fortunately, the researchers commissioned by the Cass Review took a genuinely skeptical approach to assessing other medical organizations' treatment guidelines, unlike the author of this video. Also maybe you should read it yourself instead of relying on videos like this to misinform your opinions. | | |
| ▲ | VikingCoder 6 days ago | parent [-] | | She said she read the Review. You're not arguing in good faith. Throughout our entire discussion. And tell me what basis I should judge their excluding other research? How do I know they're not just rationalizing it? That they disagreed with the conclusions and worked backwards to exclude the sources? It comes down to trust, and frankly, you're making me less likely to trust it, with the way you've communicated. I shouldn't blame them for how people talk about them, but you're certainly not doing them any favors. If you genuinely want to be more persuasive, I'd be glad to walk you through the list of mistakes I think you made. Also, I won't ask you to come to your own conclusions, but feel free to read this: https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/integrity... | | |
| ▲ | sso_eol 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Here's what she actually said: > Also, not for nothing but this thing is 388 pages. I do not have the attention span to be sure I wasn't missing something. So I cooled my heels and waited for the people who do have that expertise to weigh in. She clearly did not do any sort of deep reading of the Review herself but instead just parroted what people who already ideologically agree with her have to say about it. If she had read it herself, maybe she could have attempted a skeptical analysis. But she didn't. Thanks for the link to that article by McNamara et al. I've already previously seen it and I would recommend you also read this peer-reviewed paper published in the British Medical Journal, which carefully eviscerates its claims: https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2024/10/15/archdischild-20... | | |
| ▲ | VikingCoder 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Thanks for that link. But again, you are not arguing in good faith, and it severely weakens your arguments. If you wish to convince people, please make a stronger attempt to stick to the facts. You've repeatedly claimed, without evidence, that she did not even read the paper. "If she had read it herself, maybe she could have attempted a skeptical analysis. But she didn't." Quoting her, "So then I read the report myself." Your obstinance on this point is remarkably fruitless. Feel free to argue that she didn't understand it, especially if you can point to statements she made that you can claim are false - and especially if you can cite references that prove your point. I'll also note you didn't respond at all when I suggested you should ask your trans friends what they think. At this point, we're done. I've made repeated attempts to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you have demonstrated your unwillingness to change. | | |
| ▲ | sso_eol 6 days ago | parent [-] | | You're nitpicking over the connotation of "read" and missing the broader point that she is by her own admission just parroting the critiques of others without much thought. > At this point, we're done. I've made repeated attempts to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you have demonstrated your unwillingness to change. That's fine. To be honest, your condescending attitude was starting to irritate me so I'm pleased not to proceed with this discussion any further. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | xiixin 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | gopher_space 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Most importantly, [the article] falsely claimed that there is solid evidence youth gender medicine ameliorates adolescent suicidality, when we absolutely do not know that to any degree of certainty. There's solid evidence youth gender medicine ameliorates suicidality. Cherry picking from a single study is dishonest. | | |
| ▲ | codocod 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > There's solid evidence youth gender medicine ameliorates suicidality. Not at all true, there is no solid evidence of this. That's why it's so controversial, because ideologues are pushing for these pharmaceutical and surgical interventions on children despite the paucity of evidence. | | |
| ▲ | gopher_space 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It's mainly the parents pushing for medical intervention. Keep in mind that the impetus is generally a suicide attempt or self-mutilation by their 10 year old. There's nothing fun or trendy or exciting about this for child or family. Deeply embarrassing, far worse than getting your first hernia check if your memory goes back that far. The one thing we absolutely did. not. need. through all of this were politicians and the peanut gallery weighing in on a private medical situation while ignoring the point of our effort. Nothing in this article, and none of the comments here mention the life of the child in question. Too busy scoring points to think about reality or humanity in any way. What do you think that looks like from my perspective? | |
| ▲ | miltonlost 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > ideologues are pushing for these pharmaceutical and surgical interventions on children despite the paucity of evidence. And you're pushing anti-trans propaganda that surgical interventions are happening on children despite paucity of evidence that it's happening. Not to mention lumping together puberty blockers with surgery, which you should not. | | |
| ▲ | codocod 7 days ago | parent [-] | | > And you're pushing anti-trans propaganda that surgical interventions are happening on children despite paucity of evidence that it's happening It is well documented that it's happening. See for example https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-tran..., specifically the section titled "U.S. patients ages 13-17 undergoing mastectomy with a prior gender dysphoria diagnosis". That's not propaganda, it's data from medical insurance claims. There is other evidence too, including peer-reviewed research published in medical journals, and recordings of clinicians discussing this. | | |
| ▲ | jl6 7 days ago | parent [-] | | It’s become something of a cliche to see this exchange: “it never happens”, followed by clear evidence of it happening. One wonders if it ever leads to the person questioning what other misconceptions they’ve been fed. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | TheOtherHobbes 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | And unscientific. To be clear - the accusation isn't SciAm was politicised, but that it was politicised in an ideologically unacceptable way. I doubt we'd hear a squeak of complaint if a new editor started promoting crackpot opinion pieces about how all research should be funded by markets instead of governments (because governments shouldn't exist), or that libertarianism is the highest form of rationality. I'll take its deeply-felt concern for science and reason seriously when it starts calling out RFK Jr for being unscientific. (Prediction: this will never happen.) | | |
| ▲ | strken 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Did we read the same article? It literally has a section calling out RFK Jr, as follows: > If experts aren't to be trusted, charlatans and cranks will step into the vacuum. To mangle a line from Archer, "Do you want a world where RFK Jr. is the head of HHS? That's how you get a world where RFK Jr. is appointed head of HHS." What is this, if not an explicit call-out? I don't agree with or see a need to defend Reason very often, but what more do you want from them, here? | |
| ▲ | Nevermark 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > I doubt we'd hear a squeak […] Perhaps, especially in a dialogue specifically about scientific, reasoning and factual quality, we should avoid arguments based on counterfactual conjectures. A type of argument so weak it facilitates any viewpoint. If you have even weak evidence, better to reference that. | |
| ▲ | 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
| |
| ▲ | VikingCoder 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | "This is one of the few scientific subjects on which I've established a modicum of expertise" |
|
| |
| ▲ | defrost 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It doesn't make it clear that the author's issue appears to be solely with the editorial opinion pieces and thus feeds into trending mythology that "(modern) science is bad", has replication, DEI, woke, etc. crisis. This is the "old science" good, "new science" bad leaning that lends itself to ignoring climate costs and anything else that libertarians of various shades might object to. | | |
| ▲ | Jensson 7 days ago | parent [-] | | What does diversity and trans and such have to do with climate science? They seem to be entirely separate topics. | | |
| ▲ | redeux 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You have to understand the current US culture context to understand the answer to that question. Right wing propaganda outlets will often link topic like these with farcical statements similar to “from the people that brought you men in women’s’ bathrooms (trans) comes a demand that you get rid of your gas stove (climate change, indoor air health).” | |
| ▲ | defrost 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | You'd honestly have to ask the people that dislike modern science for it's acceptance of diversity, discussion of intersex genetics, publishing of climate science papers, and so forth. They're vocal enough in forums about the place, near as I can tell these things are all harbingers of the decline and death of science as they know it. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | watwut 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | mitthrowaway2 7 days ago | parent [-] | | Does libertarianism take a position on transgender issues? (This seems to be one focus area of the article.) I can see the author has a strong view but I don't know how libertarianism informs it. | | |
| ▲ | wk_end 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Any serious libertarian would say it (like most things) is absolutely none of the government's concern, at least with regards to consenting adults. There's probably a range of views when it comes to kids, though. Conversely, they wouldn't be interested in having the government policing the treatment of trans people between private parties, so they'd oppose things like legislation that protects them (or anyone) from discrimination in hiring, as an example. FWIW, the author - Jesse Singal - is a writer I've followed for a while. I like him a lot - I find him level-headed and intellectually honest. I don't think he'd characterize himself as a libertarian rather than a liberal, despite being published by Reason here. He's just a science writer who ended up on the "trans kids healthcare" beat and has written about it extensively. I think he'd characterize his position as just "a lot of medical treatments for kids are being pushed on [in his opinion] flimsy science for [in his opinion] ideological reasons"; and he'd say that this is a scientific position rather than a political one. Of course he takes a lot of crap for this, and of course he's also attracted a fanbase of bozos for this. But his writing, generally, deserves better than either. | | |
| ▲ | 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | nasmorn 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | wk_end 7 days ago | parent [-] | | I don't really identify as a libertarian myself, but I'm friends with several people who do and sympathetic enough to the idea that I find your accusation of paedophilia pretty distasteful. |
|
| |
| ▲ | watwut 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Libertarianism theoretically could go either way. Theoretically, do what you want with your bodies. However, libertarianias as they exist tend to be socially conservative - somehow they end up agreeing with GOP position on social issues. In this case, convervatives hate trans people, so libertarians too. | | |
| ▲ | fingerlocks 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Libertarians, at least the ones that subscribe to Reason, are not socially conservative. Just read a few articles and this is very apparent. The 2024 Libertarian Party Presidential candidate was a pro-trans gay man. | | | |
| ▲ | CoastalCoder 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > exist tend to be socially conservative - somehow they end up agreeing with GOP position on social issues. In this case, convervatives hate trans people, so libertarians too Maybe I'm in the minority, but I think you're conflating a few groups that I see as distinct: Republicans vs. conservatives, and (Holding various views about the best public policies regarding transgender issues) vs. (hating transgender persons) | | |
| ▲ | watwut 7 days ago | parent [-] | | The anti-trans outrage was rather major aspect of public life in last two years or so. Manufactured from the conservative groups that set politicizes for GOP, the ones that set the agenda. As far as public political life goes, these things are quite related and quite large source of votes for republican party. And it is very consistent - range goes somewhere between "not talking about it at all" to "being vocal in the outrage". However, I have yet to see politicians or public intellectuals on that side of spectrum to defend trans people or defend policies that makes life easier for trans people. And just about last thing that is productive is to play again the euphemism game where we pretend that side of political spectrum does not mean what they say when it sounds ugly. We played it with abortions and it turned out, yep, they wanted to make them illegal and actually succeeded. |
|
| |
| ▲ | orwin 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I hope this view is "people are free to do whatever they want", because if libertarianism is only about ownership freedom, it would be the less consistent ideology ever. | |
| ▲ | pjc50 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Libertarians have a "my body my choice" position for things like raw milk and vaccines, and a "no you shouldn't be allowed that" position for abortion and hormones, because they've ended up on the rightwing side of the culture war. |
|
|
